My Dog Teaches … Zero-Tolerance
The concept of "zero-tolerance" came into being in our
education system somewhere around 1994, ostensibly to curb
violence in our schools. Since then, it has extended into other
areas such as drug enforcement, traffic violations and
harassment in the workplace.
But what exactly is it? According to wictionary.org,
zero-tolerance is "The strict policy of enforcing all the laws
of a state, or the rules of an institution, and allowing no
toleration or compromise for first-time offenders or petty
violations".
In the last few years, it seems that more and more of our
municipalities are applying a zero-tolerance attitude towards
dogs and dog owners in order to reduce dog bites. Not that bites
from dogs has been a major problem, but I’m sure all of us could
get behind any effective program to reduce these miniscule
numbers even further. After all, no one wants to see anyone
bitten.
Of course, all of us know what a dog bite is. I think most of us
would agree that any time a dog deliberately clamped down with
its teeth on someone causing injury that would qualify.
But wait; under zero-tolerance this definition is far too
narrow. Because we are now going to consider exposure with a dog
that causes any injury whatsoever a serious matter, a dog bite
becomes any incident in which a tooth or claw comes into contact
with a human and in which the skin is broken. This would include
nips from overly rambunctious, playful puppies. It includes an
accidental scrape of a claw or tooth in playing with a dog.
Under zero-tolerance, the most minor of incidents requiring no
medical attention carries the same weight as a severe bite
requiring surgery.
Additionally, some interpret the act of a dog gripping someone’s
arm in their jaws as a bite, whether or not any injury ensues.
(As any dog-savvy person knows, dogs can use their teeth as a
means to issue a warning without any intent to injure; in these
circumstances, they deliberately inhibit their bite.)
The zero-tolerance is extended further to leashing laws and many
municipalities are resorting to draconian and petty application.
Large fines are handed out to dog owners who let their dogs run
off leash in parks, even in isolated areas when no one else is
around. Similar fines are handed out when dogs traverse the
three feet between the car and the "official" edge of those
leash-free parks that are not fenced. I have heard of instances
where dog owners have been heavily fined for "not having their
dogs under control" in leash-free dog parks when their dogs did
not come when called.
Will these tactics reduce dog bites? Of course not. In fact,
lumping accidental and minor incidents in with the more serious
bites only serves to inflate the numbers unnecessarily. This
gives us a false picture of the risk and leads some to believe
that dog bites are increasing when the real evidence indicates
the opposite. (In contrast, because bites from dogs are a
work-related injury for mail carriers, statistics from the U.S.
Post Office must be considered more reliable; these show that
dog bites have declined sharply by over 50% since the 1980’s.)
And by using this zero-tolerance "any dog bite is a serious
problem" approach, the media can sure whip up some hysteria.
When we have such a loose definition of what constitutes a bite,
why stop there? Why not call an accidental scrape "a narrow
escape from an attacking pit bull"? (I can assure you it has
been done.)
By the way, how well has zero-tolerance fared in our schools?
Not very well if you consider that school children as young as
ten have been arrested, incarcerated and charged criminally for
such "serious" offenses as having plastic knives and manicure
files in their possession, forming their hands into the shape of
a gun and other trivial transgressions. School suspensions in
some overly zealous school districts have increased dramatically
to a point where a significant percentage of the school
population has been suspended at one time or another. So
concerned was the American Bar Association with the explosion of
severe punishment for minor or non-existent wrongdoing that they
issued a formal condemnation of zero-tolerance to the U.S. House
of Delegates. In their Juvenile Justice Policies – Zero
Tolerance Policy Report, they declare, "Unfortunately, when
it is examined closely, ‘zero-tolerance’ turns out to have very
little to do with zero-tolerance, and everything to do with
one-size-fits-all mandatory punishment".
I couldn’t agree more. It seems that in our unrealistic pursuit
to reduce all risk to zero, we have correspondingly reduced our
human rights and freedom. Zero-tolerance. Zero thinking. Zero
flexibility. Zero discretion. Zero common sense. Maximum
injustice.
Previous "Petitorial"
articles by David McKague:
Editor’s note:
I would like to encourage dog lovers everywhere
to start a PETITION to have this law thrown out or revised to such
a form where justice prevails. SFR.
|
|
